Ed Stetzer was recently interviewed by Joe Thorn over at the sub-text. His comments and insight will resonate with many church leaders. You can read the full interview here. I particularly appreciate Stetzer’s comments on some common mistakes churches make in the suburbs:

What are some common mistakes churches in the suburbs make?

I think there are probably several.

First, they assume that nice shiny clean people have nice shiny clean lives. When you work in an urban context, you can sometimes see the sin and trouble with greater ease. It is better hidden in the suburbs. Thus, we think that people need sermons on how to improve their lives. They don’t. They need messages on how to be transformed by the gospel.

Second, the suburbs are community killers. Many churches make the assumption that because people have moved to a setting that has back decks instead of front porches that they don’t want community. I have found that they do — they just do not know how to seek and receive it. Life transforming suburban churches can and must lead people to deeper community even when the culture pushes against it.

Third, some pastors hate the suburbs. If you hate the suburbs, stop whining about it and move into the city. I have done both and find them both in deep need of the gospel. It is trendy to mock the suburbs — I have done it myself, calling them the “vast suburban wasteland.” Well, it may be, but everywhere is a wasteland without Jesus. So, if you are called to pastor in the suburbs, dig deep and engage its culture — look for bridges over which the gospel will travel and expose the idols that the gospel must destroy.

If you minister in a suburban context, what are some unique challenges that you have faced?

With the current financial chaos distressing our markets, I was surprised when the Leadership Network released this survey on financial perspectives in the church. The survey of large churches took place this summer, before the most recent madness surrounding a $700 billion government bailout of the financial services sector. Regardless, I’m pleasantly surprised with the optimism. This snippet from the report:

The 105 large churches surveyed by Leadership Network this summer said they were “minimally” or “not at all” affected (56%) by the downturn in the economy, while 41% responded “somewhat negatively” and 3% “very negatively” on the question.

While the outlook is not as hopeful as in previous surveys conducted, a large measure of financial optimism remains:

In terms of expected income this year, 74% of surveyed churches expect that income will increase in 2009, while 66% expect that their church will probably meet its budget this year and 28% said they probably would not meet budget. Two years ago, the latter group constituted only 4% who would not meet budget.

While 74% of surveyed churches expect their income will increase next year, that’s down from 96% two years ago. Nevertheless, 13% expect income to remain the same and only 12% predict a decrease.

This survey was conducted among larger churches. Would the results be any different among small and mid-size churches? My guess is that mid-size churches are hit the hardest in times of financial crises. But what do you think about the financial effects on churches in harder economic times?

For a limited time, you can download my book, Essential Church?, for free. Click here for more information. Since you can read it for free, let me know your thoughts about the dropout issue.

The latest statistical blurb from Pew Research is not surprising: men are less likely to have a religious affiliation than women. Much has been written on the lack of male representation in the congregation, but Pew gives us the exact percentage. Approximately one in five men (19.6%) is totally unaffiliated with a religion.

What seems to be an anomaly, however, is that men are more likely than women to be attached to a religion other than Christianity. You can read the full article here; below is an excerpt:

Men are significantly more likely to claim no religious affiliation than are women; nearly one-in-five men have no formal religious affiliation, almost seven percentage points more than women. Men are also twice as likely to say they are atheist or agnostic as compared with women (5.5% vs. 2.6%). Women are more likely to be affiliated with nearly every major Christian group; nearly 54% of women are Protestant, for instance, compared with 49% of men. But men are slightly more likely than women to associate with other religious traditions, including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism.

What say you guys? Is this trend getting worse or better? Is the church beginning to reach out to men more? There certainly is more talk about this subject, which is good. But do any of you have success stories about reaching this half of the population?

LifeWay Research recently unveiled statistics on hot topics in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and where SBC pastors stand on these issues. Since I pastor an SBC church, the results interested me. One piece of the study I found fascinating involved a name change:

Among Southern Baptist pastors, 7 percent strongly agreed – and another 20 percent somewhat agreed – with the statement, “Having the name ‘Southern’ in the ‘Southern Baptist Convention’ is a hindrance to the work of SBC churches.” Forty-one percent strongly disagreed with the statement while 27 percent somewhat disagreed and 5 percent “don’t know.”

To further clarify opinions on the denomination’s name, Southern Baptist pastors were also asked their level of agreement with the statement, “Having the name ‘Southern’ in the ‘Southern Baptist Convention’ is a hindrance to the work of SBC churches outside of the South.” As the focus shifted to Southern Baptist congregations outside the convention’s historic strongholds, 16 percent of Southern Baptist pastors strongly agreed and 26 percent somewhat agreed, while 29 percent strongly disagreed and 21 percent somewhat disagreed. The remaining 9 percent “don’t know.”

You can read an article containing all of the hot topics here.

What do you think about a name change? Does it make a statement about a greater area of focus? Or does it represent a compromise of identity?